ordained only by Presbyters shall not be compelled to renounce their former ordination. But because many have, and do still doubt of the validity of such ordination, where episcopal ordination may be had, and is by law required, it shall be sufficient for such persons to receive ordination from a Bishop in this or the like form: If thou art not already ordained, I ordain thee, &c., as in case a doubt be made of any one's baptism, it is appointed by the Liturgy that he be baptized in this form, If thou art not baptized, I baptize thee, &c."1

Burnet, as I have noticed, thought at the end of April that to entrust Convocation with the business of Comprehension would be its ruin; Tillotson at the same time considered that ecclesiastical affairs ought to be submitted to Synodical authority, lest a handle should be offered for objecting that, as in the case of the Reformation, the change was accomplished by the State rather than the Church. The Dean, however, considered it expedient that, in the first instance, a Commission should be issued for a number of Divines, of diverse opinions, to digest a scheme for "establishing a durable peace."2 His object was good, his motives were amiable, but his method was unwise; for what chance would there be that Commissioners, in case of coming to an agreement, could induce Convocation to adopt their views? It was to renew Archbishop Williams' Committee in 1641; it was to repeat the inconsistency of the Savoy Conference. It is true the relation between Tillotson's Committee and the Convocation was more definite than that between the two bodies in a former instance, still it was of an abnormal kind, and open to objections from ecclesiastical lawyers. Though Burnet had in April predicted the

1 Birch's Life of Fillotson, 182-184.

2 Ibid., 180.

failure of the scheme, he in the course of the summer fell in with it, and the King, influenced by the Dean's persuasion and by Burnet's concurrence, issued, on the 13th of September, an instrument for bringing together ten Bishops and twenty Divines to confer upon this matter. The Commissioners on the 3rd of October met in the Jerusalem Chamber-that old theological battle-field, that famous arena of ecclesiastical warfare. Proceedings opened at 9 o'clock; there were 17 of the 30 Commissioners present.1 After listening to the Commission, they discussed the question, whether the Apocrypha ought to be publicly read in Church. Beveridge, the Archdeacon of Colchester, contended, that dropping the old custom would give great offence to the people; and he was supported by Dr. Jane, Professor of Divinity at Oxford, who had a hand in drawing up the famous University decree in 1683, against seditious books and damnable doctrines. Jane recommended, that if not the whole Apocrypha, yet some of its most useful portions should be retained; on the other hand, it was urged that not only were particular parts objectionable, but all the books were deficient in authority, and to take lessons from them was to countenance the baseless pretensions of the Church of Rome. Meggot, Dean of Winchester, wished the Commissioners to defer their decision until a larger number should meet; to which it was replied that, inasmuch as a decision would not be binding, but would be referred to Convocation, they might as well vote at once; upon

1 Stillingfleet was in the Commission, but he was prevented from attending by a fit of the gout. Life of Stilling fleet, 75.

Dr. Williams, afterwards Bishop of Chichester, kept a diary of the proceedings of the Commission,

which, with a Copy of the Alterations, is printed in a Parliamentary Return, 1854. To this Return I am chiefly indebted for what follows. The papers printed in it had long been desired by historical students.

which the Commissioners decided against the use of Apocryphal lessons.

The Prayer-Book version of the Psalms next came under review, when Kidder, then one of the London clergy, and regarded as an authority on the subject, was appealed to by the Bishops present, and gave his opinion, that the author of the first half of the version, growing weary of his patchwork, translated the second portion afresh, greatly to the improvement of the whole, although the entire translation differed from the Septuagint, as well as from the original Hebrew. Nothing was determined, and the meeting broke up about 12 o'clock.

At the next sitting (October the 16th), a serious discussion arose as to the authority of the Commission itself. Sprat, Bishop of Rochester-then, as Dean of Westminster, living next door to the Jerusalem Chamberhad been an active member of James' High Commission, and now, inconsistently enough, objected to the Low Commission appointed by William; yet this was as constitutional as the former had been the reverse, for this amounted to no more than a committee of advice, whereas that claimed judicial prerogatives. Sprat either overlooked or pretended not to see the distinction, and talked of the danger of incurring a premunire by venturing to proceed with business. He said a burnt child dreads the fire, and as he had been deceived with regard to the other Commission, though some of the Judges were in its favour, he should not be satisfied with the Commission under which they were now brought together, unless the whole Judicial bench sanctioned its appointment. After quibbles about the altered official position of some Commissioners, and the small number left at the close of the last meeting, he urged the inconsistency of touching formularies to which they had given their assent and

consent; the impropriety of forestalling Convocational debates; and the probability of provoking Parliament by usurping its functions. Sprat found a supporter in Jane-" a double-faced Janus," as people called him, for, after being a staunch supporter of non-resistance, he had conveyed to the Prince of Orange the offer of the University to coin its plate in the Deliverer's service; and next, disappointed of a mitre, had on that account (so said his enemies) abandoned liberal opinions, and gone over to the camp of Toryism, where he found a more congenial atmosphere and a more agreeable home.

Another of Sprat's allies. was Dr. Aldrich,1 Dean of Christchurch, a man of much higher character than Jane, architect of the Peckwater Quadrangle, munificent in his patronage and gifts, a master of logic, a proficient in music, and generous and genial in his hospitality. But Patrick, the new Bishop of Chichester, came to the rescue, dwelling upon the difference between the two Commissions, and urging the high legal sanction of their present operations. Compton, Bishop of Londonstill zealous on the liberal side-told his brethren that what they were doing had received the sanction of the Lords; that if they did not execute their trust, it would be taken out of the hands of the Clergy altogether; and that discharging their duty now would facilitate the business of Convocation, in the same way as Committees. helped on the work of Parliament. Already it appeared that the reverend and right reverend Commissioners were sitting on barrels of gunpowder; presently the first explosion occurred, when Lloyd, Bishop of St. Asaph, one of the most zealous advocates of Comprehension,

hastily rose to move that those who were not satisfied with the Commission were at liberty to withdraw. This offended Sprat, Aldrich, and Jane; the last rose in a pet to leave the room, but was persuaded to remain, and it was prudently advised "that all things that happened at that time might be kept secret." The stormy discussion lasted beyond noon, when the Bishops of London and Worcester and several others retired to the hospitable table of Dr. Patrick in the neighbouring cloister, and then went over several amendments to be made in the Liturgy. Two days afterwards, on the 18th, the Commissioners entered upon the consideration of ceremonies distasteful to Dissenters. Aldrich and Jane left soon after the debate commenced, and those who remained came to the conclusion that, as for receiving the Sacrament, "it should be in some posture of reverence, and in some convenient pew or place in the church, so that none but those that kneeled should come up to the rails or table, and that the persons scrupling, should some week-day before come to the minister, and declare that they could not kneel with a good conscience. This was agreed to, and drawn up. Only the Bishop of Winchester moved that the names of such persons might be written down, but that was not approved, and after all he dissented from the whole."1

At the next meeting they took up the question of godfathers, Beveridge contending for the retention of them as being agreeable to ancient practice; some, on the other hand, declared that the custom often became a mere matter of interest, and even went so far as to assert, "that it was hard to find an instance of a child baptized before St. Cyprian's time."

1 Return, 98.